Ethics - Short Answer

Question 1

Briefly present Glaucon’s Challenge

Answer 1

Assume an agent who doesn’t already acknowledge a reason to act morally. Have we any reason to convince her that she should act morally?
NICKEL: Can we give a reason to act morally to an agent who isn’t antecedently convinced that they should act morally; why is antecedently convinced required? it’d be very easy for me to convince someone who is already antecedently convinced. means and ends: if an agent wills an end but thinks she has no reason to will the means.

Question 2

Consider the following two claims:
Simple Utilitarianism An action is morally permissible if and only if that action yields some pleasure.
Orthodox Utilitarianism An action performed by an agent A is morally permissible if and only if among the actions available to A, it maximizes overall utility.
Present a case which distinguishes between these two claims, i.e., a case about which the two theories make different predictions.

Answer 2

In the case of texting while driving, some pleasure is yielded in communicating with someone, so simple utilitarianism would render it permissible, but the danger of an auto collision is more present and can decrease pleasure significantly; Orthodox utilitarianism would judge this action to be morally impermissible because it does not maximize overall utility

Question 3

Briefly present the objection Mill considers according to which utilitarianism is “a doctrine worthy of swine,” and present Mill’s response (about three paragraphs suffice by way of an answer to this prompt)

Answer 3

Utilitarianism is a doctrine that reduces the whole of life to pleasure. A swine could fulfill this, it is wrong to reduce humans’ capabilities to a swine’s capabilities.
It is erroneous to think that there is only a quantitative factor to maximize in utilitarianism. Some pleasures are more desirable and more valuable.

Question 4

Briefly state the central problem for deontological ethical theories, and illustrate it with an example.

Answer 4

Deontological means it is not concerned with consequences; it is concerned with maxims, rules.
What makes the rule something that should be followed?
Example: shall not lie
When a known serial killer comes knocking at your door asking if your children are home because he wants to kill them, you cannot lie and have to tell him that they are.

Question 5

Present a maxim that, according to Kant, gives rise to a contradiction in conception. Explain why, according to Kant, the maxim gives rise to this contradiction.

Answer 5

In order to get some money, I shall make a lying promise;
The maxim gives rise to a contradiction in conception because getting some money would not be achieved by means of making a lying promise when the maxim is universalized
• In the situation that everyone attempts to use this means to achieve the end, and everyone knows that everyone attempts to act on the maxim
• the attempt by everyone to act on the maxim A would make it impossible for anyone to succeed in accomplishing X

Question 6

Present a maxim that, according to Kant, gives rise to a contradiction in the will. Explain why, according to Kant, the maxim gives rise to this contradiction.

Answer 6

In order to have some extra income, i shall never give to charity
This maxim suffers from a contradiction in the will because no one could rationally will to live in the situation in which this maxim is universalized.
• Consider the situation in which everyone acts on this maxim
• It’s possible for everyone to succeed in accomplishing X by means A (no cont. in conc.)
• But nobody could rationally will to live in a situation where the maxim is universalized